Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.tech.broadcast > #70189 > unrolled thread

Bloody football!

Back to article view | Back to uk.tech.broadcast

Contents

  Bloody football! NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-06-17 22:42 +0100
    Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-17 23:14 +0100
      Re: Bloody football! Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 06:10 +0000
        Re: Bloody football! liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-06-18 09:46 +0100
          Re: Bloody football! Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-18 18:54 +0100
            Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-18 20:36 +0100
              Re: Bloody football! Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-19 09:18 +0100
    Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-18 08:03 +0100
    Re: Bloody football! jon <reading.mostly@crap.org> - 2026-06-25 01:24 +0000
      Re: Bloody football! NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-06-25 14:12 +0100
        Re: Bloody football! Old John <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> - 2026-06-25 15:31 +0000
        Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-25 20:45 +0100
          Re: Bloody football! Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-26 08:12 +0100
            Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-26 12:11 +0100
              Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-26 19:21 +0100
                Re: Bloody football! Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-27 09:49 +0100
                  Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-27 20:50 +0100
              Re: Bloody football! Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-27 12:07 +0100
                Re: Bloody football! John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-27 15:34 +0100
                  Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-27 20:58 +0100
                    Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-27 23:37 +0100
                      Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-28 01:26 +0100
                        Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-28 11:20 +0100
                          Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-28 12:50 +0100
                            Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-28 13:41 +0100
                              Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-28 14:13 +0100
                                Re: Bloody football! Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 13:26 +0000
                    Re: Bloody football! NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-06-29 13:22 +0100
                      Re: Bloody football! Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 12:34 +0000
                      Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-29 14:41 +0100
                        Re: Bloody football! NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-06-29 18:48 +0100
          Re: Bloody football! Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> - 2026-06-28 10:55 +0000
            Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-28 12:56 +0100
              Re: Bloody football! John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-28 14:00 +0100
                Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-28 14:20 +0100
                  Re: Bloody football! John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-28 15:59 +0100
                    Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-28 18:36 +0100
                      Re: Bloody football! John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-28 21:46 +0100
                Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-28 16:10 +0100
                  Re: Bloody football! John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-28 16:17 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#70189 — Bloody football!

Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do 
You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any 
further ahead than that).

Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then 
break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks 
and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has 
finished?

Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated 
as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me: 
my interests are not mainstream!)

I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and 
leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week 
programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh 
dear, how sad, never mind ;-)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#70190

On 2026/6/17 22:42:2, NY wrote:
> Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do 
> You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any 
> further ahead than that).
> 
> Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then 
> break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks 
> and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has 
> finished?
> 
> Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated 
> as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me: 
> my interests are not mainstream!)

I think "not liking football" is now big enough to be called mainstream,
but TPTB are still stuck in the 1950s.
> 
> I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and 
> leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week 
> programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh 
> dear, how sad, never mind ;-)

Would be nice - but of course the red button channels aren't there to be
used any time: when they _are_ in use, the bits need to be stolen from
something else.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If just one child is saved, then we'll have created a police state for
the benefit of just one child."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70191

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On 2026/6/17 22:42:2, NY wrote:
>> Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do 
>> You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any 
>> further ahead than that).
>> 
>> Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then 
>> break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks 
>> and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has 
>> finished?
>> 
>> Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated 
>> as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me: 
>> my interests are not mainstream!)
> 
> I think "not liking football" is now big enough to be called mainstream,
> but TPTB are still stuck in the 1950s.
>> 
>> I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and 
>> leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week 
>> programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh 
>> dear, how sad, never mind ;-)
> 
> Would be nice - but of course the red button channels aren't there to be
> used any time: when they _are_ in use, the bits need to be stolen from
> something else.

Go for a walk, read a book. Catch up on something on iPlayer. Football
doesn’t interest me either, but there’s loads of other things to do whilst
it’s on. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70193

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> > On 2026/6/17 22:42:2, NY wrote:
> >> Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
> >> You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any
> >> further ahead than that).
> >> 
> >> Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then
> >> break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks
> >> and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has
> >> finished?
> >> 
> >> Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated
> >> as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me:
> >> my interests are not mainstream!)
> > 
> > I think "not liking football" is now big enough to be called mainstream,
> > but TPTB are still stuck in the 1950s.
> >> 
> >> I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
> >> leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week 
> >> programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh
> >> dear, how sad, never mind ;-)
> > 
> > Would be nice - but of course the red button channels aren't there to be
> > used any time: when they _are_ in use, the bits need to be stolen from
> > something else.
> 
> Go for a walk, read a book. Catch up on something on iPlayer. Football
> doesn’t interest me either, but there’s loads of other things to do whilst
> it’s on. 

Get rid of the television altogether.  I did that in 1985 and I haven't
regretted it.


-- 
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70194

On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 09:46:19 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> > On 2026/6/17 22:42:2, NY wrote:
>> >> Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
>> >> You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any
>> >> further ahead than that).
>> >> 
>> >> Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then
>> >> break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks
>> >> and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has
>> >> finished?
>> >> 
>> >> Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated
>> >> as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me:
>> >> my interests are not mainstream!)
>> > 
>> > I think "not liking football" is now big enough to be called mainstream,
>> > but TPTB are still stuck in the 1950s.
>> >> 
>> >> I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
>> >> leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week 
>> >> programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh
>> >> dear, how sad, never mind ;-)
>> > 
>> > Would be nice - but of course the red button channels aren't there to be
>> > used any time: when they _are_ in use, the bits need to be stolen from
>> > something else.
>> 
>> Go for a walk, read a book. Catch up on something on iPlayer. Football
>> doesn’t interest me either, but there’s loads of other things to do whilst
>> it’s on. 
>
>Get rid of the television altogether.  I did that in 1985 and I haven't
>regretted it.

Someone wrote in the (Glasgow) Herald that they had binned their TV. I
wrote a letter pointing out this was a breach of the WEEE Regulations
and my letter was printed. Quiet news day :-)  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70195

On 18/06/2026 18:54, Scott wrote:
> Someone wrote in the (Glasgow) Herald that they had binned their TV. I
> wrote a letter pointing out this was a breach of the WEEE Regulations
> and my letter was printed. Quiet news day


Far more have 'binned' the Glasgow Herald ages ago.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70196

On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 20:36:50 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 18/06/2026 18:54, Scott wrote:
>> Someone wrote in the (Glasgow) Herald that they had binned their TV. I
>> wrote a letter pointing out this was a breach of the WEEE Regulations
>> and my letter was printed. Quiet news day
>
>Far more have 'binned' the Glasgow Herald ages ago.
>
This is true though some follow via online subscription. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70192

On 17/06/2026 22:42, NY wrote:
> I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and 
> leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week 
> programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh 
> dear, how sad, never mind



Perhaps because it will get some of the highest viewing figures of the 
year, more than WDYTYA.

I can imagine it might make getting broadcast rights for sports events 
difficult if they are put on a low bandwidth minor channel.

I am not a sports fan but it does bother me and the rest of the WDYTYA 
series will be shown later.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70205

On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 22:42:02 +0100, NY wrote:

> Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
> You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any
> further ahead than that).
> 
> Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then
> break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks
> and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has
> finished?
> 
> Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated
> as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me:
> my interests are not mainstream!)
> 
> I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
> leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week
> programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh
> dear, how sad, never mind ;-)

Then there will be 'Bat and Ball'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70210

On 25/06/2026 02:24, jon wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 22:42:02 +0100, NY wrote:
> 
>> Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
>> You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any
>> further ahead than that).
>>
>> Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then
>> break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks
>> and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has
>> finished?
>>
>> Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated
>> as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me:
>> my interests are not mainstream!)
>>
>> I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
>> leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week
>> programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh
>> dear, how sad, never mind ;-)
> 
> Then there will be 'Bat and Ball'

And I'm sure somewhere in the country/world there will be athletics and 
other sport which "has" to take precedence over regular schedule programmes.

I've just seen on Digiguide that Who Do You Think You Are episode 4 
(Ruth Madeley) is being shown on Thursday 9 July (not Tuesday 7 July) on 
BBC Two.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70211

On 25 Jun 2026 at 14:12:35 BST, "NY" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> On 25/06/2026 02:24, jon wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 22:42:02 +0100, NY wrote:
>> 
>>> Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
>>> You Think You Are? 16, 23 and now 30 June (Digiguide doesn't go any
>>> further ahead than that).
>>> 
>>> Their scheduling department is screwed up - why start a series and then
>>> break it in the middle? Why not show single programmes for a few weeks
>>> and then the whole uninterrupted WDYTYA starting after the football has
>>> finished?
>>> 
>>> Why is is *always* the programmes that I want to watch that are treated
>>> as disposable, and the dross which is allowed to remain. (Don't tell me:
>>> my interests are not mainstream!)
>>> 
>>> I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
>>> leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week
>>> programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh
>>> dear, how sad, never mind ;-)
>> 
>> Then there will be 'Bat and Ball'
> 
> And I'm sure somewhere in the country/world there will be athletics and
> other sport which "has" to take precedence over regular schedule programmes.
> 
> I've just seen on Digiguide that Who Do You Think You Are episode 4
> (Ruth Madeley) is being shown on Thursday 9 July (not Tuesday 7 July) on
> BBC Two.

I wonder how the Invicta games will fare?

-- 
Vita non est vivere sed valere vita est

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70212

On 2026/6/25 14:12:35, NY wrote:
> On 25/06/2026 02:24, jon wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 22:42:02 +0100, NY wrote:
>>
>>> Three sodding weeks (at least), football is taking the place of Who Do
[]
>>> I wish BBC would use their Red-Button channels for all live sport, and
>>> leave the normal channels for scheduled same-time-every-week
>>> programming. And let one football match displace another one on RB - oh
>>> dear, how sad, never mind ;-)

:-)
>>
>> Then there will be 'Bat and Ball'

I think that's mostly moved to the paid channels. But we're about to get
saturation coverage of "raquet and ball" for a while.

I agree, there should be dedicated sports channels - or, a different way
of looking at it, dedicated sports-free channels, for as NY said
"scheduled same-time-every-week programming".
> 
> And I'm sure somewhere in the country/world there will be athletics and 
> other sport which "has" to take precedence over regular schedule programmes.[]
I don't follow much sport, but when I do, I'm happy to go to another
channel for it.

But the entire concept of regular scheduled programming is probably
considered hideously old-fashioned by the latest generation (or two),
and they're now getting into The Powers That Be positions.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

'Do you like the chair?'
'It's very comfortable.'
'It provides the illusion of comfort, which is all that life really is.'
- Douglas Adams arr. James Goss, 'Doctor Who and the Krikkitmen', 2018

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70213

On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 20:45:56 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>But the entire concept of regular scheduled programming is probably
>considered hideously old-fashioned by the latest generation (or two),
>and they're now getting into The Powers That Be positions.

The entire concept of regular scheduled programming has been rendered
unnecessary by developments in technology. Now we can watch whatever
we want wherever we want whenever we want, just as we could previously
do with books. That freedom doesn't seem a bad thing to me.

Rod.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70214

On 26/06/2026 08:12, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> The entire concept of regular scheduled programming has been rendered
> unnecessary by developments in technology. Now we can watch whatever
> we want wherever we want whenever we want, just as we could previously
> do with books. That freedom doesn't seem a bad thing to me.



I tend to watch the 'regular scheduled channels' most of the time 
because I know what I am going to find there.  I can't be bothered with 
most of the others and also they tend to just have lots of crap.

I don't mind repeated programmes because much of the time, the best 
viewing is old TV series but there are many series that I did not watch 
first time around and still don't watch now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70215

On 2026/6/26 12:11:50, JMB99 wrote:
> On 26/06/2026 08:12, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> The entire concept of regular scheduled programming has been rendered
>> unnecessary by developments in technology. Now we can watch whatever
>> we want wherever we want whenever we want, just as we could previously
>> do with books. That freedom doesn't seem a bad thing to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to watch the 'regular scheduled channels' most of the time 
> because I know what I am going to find there.  I can't be bothered with 
> most of the others and also they tend to just have lots of crap.
> 
> I don't mind repeated programmes because much of the time, the best 
> viewing is old TV series but there are many series that I did not watch 
> first time around and still don't watch now.
> 
> 
> 
The "developments in technology" mean I have to go hunting around, since
TPTB have _used_ those developments to stop me doing what I was before -
finding certain prog.s on certain channels at certain times, without
having to faff about. Sure, I'm a fan of technology - where it gives me
something new/additional. Where it gives just change for change's sake,
it's not so hot.

A trivial example that came with DTV that we've all accepted - including
me, as I think the extra channels and (technical) quality worth it - is
the time to change channel. It was instant (for practical purposes)
under system I; it's now several seconds.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Young man, if you think I am going to climb up there you are greatly
mistaken. I am Melba." - Dame Nellie, in June 1920, on being shown the
tall aerials that would enable her voice to be heard around the world.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70216

On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 19:21:23 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On 2026/6/26 12:11:50, JMB99 wrote:
>> On 26/06/2026 08:12, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> The entire concept of regular scheduled programming has been rendered
>>> unnecessary by developments in technology. Now we can watch whatever
>>> we want wherever we want whenever we want, just as we could previously
>>> do with books. That freedom doesn't seem a bad thing to me.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I tend to watch the 'regular scheduled channels' most of the time 
>> because I know what I am going to find there.  I can't be bothered with 
>> most of the others and also they tend to just have lots of crap.
>> 
>> I don't mind repeated programmes because much of the time, the best 
>> viewing is old TV series but there are many series that I did not watch 
>> first time around and still don't watch now.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>The "developments in technology" mean I have to go hunting around, since
>TPTB have _used_ those developments to stop me doing what I was before -
>finding certain prog.s on certain channels at certain times, without
>having to faff about. Sure, I'm a fan of technology - where it gives me
>something new/additional. Where it gives just change for change's sake,
>it's not so hot.

The developments in technology enable you to watch *your* choice of
material in *your* time, not someone else's. If you're happier letting
someone else choose what to show you according to *their* timetable,
that's your preference and you're perfectly entitled to it, but the
extra choice feels like a genuine advantage to me. I doubt that you've
ever complained about having to go 'hunting around' in a bookshop
instead of waiting for someone to tell you what you can read that day.

Rod.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70223

On 2026/6/27 9:49:4, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 19:21:23 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>> The "developments in technology" mean I have to go hunting around, since
>> TPTB have _used_ those developments to stop me doing what I was before -
>> finding certain prog.s on certain channels at certain times, without
>> having to faff about. Sure, I'm a fan of technology - where it gives me
>> something new/additional. Where it gives just change for change's sake,
>> it's not so hot.
> 
> The developments in technology enable you to watch *your* choice of
> material in *your* time, not someone else's. If you're happier letting
> someone else choose what to show you according to *their* timetable,
> that's your preference and you're perfectly entitled to it, but the
> extra choice feels like a genuine advantage to me. I doubt that you've
> ever complained about having to go 'hunting around' in a bookshop
> instead of waiting for someone to tell you what you can read that day.

I _would_ complain if, for example, I now had to look for cookbooks in,
I don't know, the geography section, not where they always were. (Not
that I ever look for cookbooks!)
> 
> Rod.

Pole or Perch (sorry)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Does the pope sh*t in the woods? - John Cleese (2017-4-22 or before)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70217

On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:11:50 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 26/06/2026 08:12, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> The entire concept of regular scheduled programming has been rendered
>> unnecessary by developments in technology. Now we can watch whatever
>> we want wherever we want whenever we want, just as we could previously
>> do with books. That freedom doesn't seem a bad thing to me.
>
>I tend to watch the 'regular scheduled channels' most of the time 
>because I know what I am going to find there.  I can't be bothered with 
>most of the others and also they tend to just have lots of crap.

I think you are missing the point here. No-one is suggesting watching
a bunch of obscure and niche channels. The suggestion is that services
like BBC iPlayer allow you to pick the programmes you want at the time
you want them.
>
>I don't mind repeated programmes because much of the time, the best 
>viewing is old TV series but there are many series that I did not watch 
>first time around and still don't watch now. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70218

On 27/06/2026 12:07, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:11:50 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 26/06/2026 08:12, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> The entire concept of regular scheduled programming has been rendered
>>> unnecessary by developments in technology. Now we can watch whatever
>>> we want wherever we want whenever we want, just as we could previously
>>> do with books. That freedom doesn't seem a bad thing to me.
>>
>> I tend to watch the 'regular scheduled channels' most of the time
>> because I know what I am going to find there.  I can't be bothered with
>> most of the others and also they tend to just have lots of crap.
>
> I think you are missing the point here. No-one is suggesting watching
> a bunch of obscure and niche channels. The suggestion is that services
> like BBC iPlayer allow you to pick the programmes you want at the time
> you want them.

As long as your broadband is reliably fast enough and your TV is smart 
enough. In my case, neither is true.

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70224

On 2026/6/27 15:34:26, John Williamson wrote:
> On 27/06/2026 12:07, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:11:50 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
[]
>>> I tend to watch the 'regular scheduled channels' most of the time
>>> because I know what I am going to find there.  I can't be bothered with
>>> most of the others and also they tend to just have lots of crap.
>>
>> I think you are missing the point here. No-one is suggesting watching
>> a bunch of obscure and niche channels. The suggestion is that services
>> like BBC iPlayer allow you to pick the programmes you want at the time
>> you want them.

JMB99 and I don't want to watch "obscure and niche channels" - at least,
if we do, we're willing to hunt for them. It's the tendency to disrupt
regular scheduling on common/popular channels that we are objecting to -
and the use of "oh, you can find your normal prog. on iPlayer" or
similar to justify the disruption. Why not put the cause of the
disruption (often sport!) on iPlayer and/or the "obscure" channel.
> 
> As long as your broadband is reliably fast enough and your TV is smart 
> enough. In my case, neither is true.
> 
My non-smart TVs work fine.  I get _extremely_ fed up with "press red to
watch ...".
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Does the pope sh*t in the woods? - John Cleese (2017-4-22 or before)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.tech.broadcast

csiph-web